Gutting the Real Meaning of Welfare

Gutting the Real Meaning of Welfare

This redefinition of “welfare” to include the act
of killing an innocent animal who does not want to die is an object lesson
of sorts. It teaches us how suffering obscured by language reverberates
beyond a particular realm (in this case, agriculture) and infects society at
large. When welfare is cheapened, after all, every one of us loses–whether
we eat animals or not.

Consumers of “happy meat” are easily seduced by the ditzy idea that, so
long as the animal they eat doesn’t come from a factory farm, they’re
morally exonerated from the slaughter and suffering they’ve caused for no
good reason other than to satisfy their palates. This sense of exoneration
is not only dishonestly achieved, but it perpetuates something that
advocates of “humanely” raised animals might not care to perpetuate: it
hollows out the entire notion of “welfare,” thereby undermining the core
meaning of an idea that lends grace and dignity to all relationships.

One major reason that the happy meat crowd opposes factory farming is
because it violates animals’ basic welfare. They say it all the time. In
industrial settings, pigs can’t be pigs; chickens can’t be chickens; and
cows can’t be cows; (and, we could add, humans can’t be humans). So, the
idea goes, move animals onto pastures where pigs can be pigs, chickens can
be chickens, and cows can be cows. This transition, it seems safe to say,
improves their welfare.

Indeed, putting aside for now the complexities of providing “proper”
conditions for these complex animals on “happy” farms, and putting aside the
question of the morality of animal ownership, it’s safe to say that there’s
some merit to the idea that greater space equals greater happiness for farm
animals. So, in free range systems, animal welfare, we can all provisionally
agree, is improved and the concept of “welfare” is preserved in its basic
form.

But then, on slaughter day, a carnivalesque flip-flop turns happiness
into horror. “Welfare” is suddenly transformed into an excuse to kill. The
happy farm becomes a very sad farm for the animals who pleasurable existence
is now forced to end. The complicit producers and consumers will hone their
rationalizations and say “oh, the pig lived a good life,” or “death is only
one day,” or “hey, this was better than living on a factory farm.” And,
however perverse their logic, it will all sound legit enough for the foodie
press to turn these phrases into culinary gospel. Of course, it’s all
predicated on the expectation that we never stop to truly think about what
we are doing, and saying.What’s happening here is a tragic redefinition of
welfare, one sadistically expanded to include the arbitrary killing of an
animal whose welfare ostensibly matters enough to raise in a setting that
increases her happiness.

What’s happening is that the entire idea of welfare is being gutted of
its most humane and enlightened premise–the premise that animals are
sentient beings with moral worth. Why else get so vexed about how they’re
raised? Ah, but then that vexation is viciously contradicted by the decision
to kill the animal and serve his flesh for dinner. Still, rather than
contemplate that contradiction, the happy animal eaters simply feel smug in
their false virtue. Unthinking is easier.

The upshot goes beyond animals and agriculture. This redefinition of
“welfare” to include the act of killing an innocent animal who does not want
to die is an object lesson of sorts. It teaches us how suffering obscured by
language reverberates beyond a particular realm (in this case, agriculture)
and infects society at large. When welfare is cheapened, after all, every
one of us loses–whether we eat animals or not. Every relationship–be it
based on love, friendship, or basic respect–is weakened. Yet another reason
to fight back against this tyrannical activity.

Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.